User talk:Mayasutra

Welcome!

Hello, Mayasutra! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. Have been using the tildes but I suppose I have not been getting them right. Thankyou for letting me know the quicker way of using the Signature button :) Cheers, --Illusion 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra

Could you modify your signature so that it includes a link to your user or usertalk page ? That makes it much easier for other editors to contact you, if they wish. Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, I press the signature button and then write Mayasutra and save page. Am fairly new on wiki and learning the usage. Please can you or anyone guide me how to modify signature. Thankyou very much. Regards. --= No ||| Illusion = 04:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra

I suspect that you have a custom signature set up incorrectly. The simplest solution for now will be to revert to a standard signature as follows:

1. Click on my preferences at the top of your wikipedia screen or click Special:Preferences.
2. Under User profile -> Signature there is a box in which you can enter text: type "Mayasutra" (without the quotes)
3. Make sure that the Sign my name exactly as shown. is unchecked !

Test by signing on any talk page to see if your signature works as expected. Hope this helps! Abecedare (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much !! It was all about just unchecking one box and i was fiddling around this morning trying to find how to modify the signature and could not figure it out, am so blur :D --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra

Rationale

Kindly explain Rationale of your edit, [1]. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Vedas are Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva. Bhagvad Gita does not form a part of these 4 vedas. Bhagvad Gita is part of the Mahabharat itihaasa and is a Vedanta text. Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra form the Prasthana Traya texts or triple cannon of Vedanta. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta, written by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami,is not a part of either vedas or vedanta. Therefore i changed "Yadu in Veda" to the more accurate wording of "Yadu in Bhagvad Gita" and "Yadu in Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta". --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

It should have been srimad bhagwatam, not bhagwad gita. Both are different. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I corrected that, no issues. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate that. Accounts from puranas can be rather doubtable :) Anyways, thanks again. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi

Hi, your addition of Anita Diehl's book reference to Periyar article has caused minor ref format errors. please take a look and correct them.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, have just completed correcting them. Regards, --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Regarding the Madurai Nayak and Thanjavur Nayak articles

I managed to repair these chaotic articles to some extent including removal of date inaccuracies.I suggest you keep a watch over this page and add some valuable information with reliable sources.

Raghavan(Talk) 08:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying my edits in the Nayak articles

Your assumptions about me vandalizing the Nayak articles are rather stale.Just check my message in the talk page of Madurai Nayak article.FYI I'm cleaning these articles have actually removed date inaccuracies in both articles as a first step.You can check these sources by reputed Tamil Authors to verify the dates[2],[3].I don't know about the Bana claims much so its okay if you remove them.However I still don't consider the Caste Manuals as accurate sources for Caste affinity since many groups like Boya and Gavara were clubbed along with Balija in the census carried out.The book "Balijawaru Puranam" by Shri S.P.Narasimhulu Nayudu is the only accurate source for caste affiliation of the Tanjore Nayaks and I have requested a few active editors to get an online copy of the same.Better consider searching for this and uploading an online copy to prove Caste affiliation.-Raghavan(Talk) 16:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Raghavan. But provide references whereever you make changes wrt historical facts. Caste puranas and caste manuals are hardly authentic sources. However, it is good to check for references they used in those books / publications. I prefer evidence based on inscriptions or from publications such as Epigraphica Indica (archeology dept / history dept / government archives, etc). If you do not know about Banas, leave the topic alone. Do not delete or make changes.

Also note, a large section of Lingayaths are Balijas in Karnataka. They are Kannadigas. They do not know Telugu. No need to claim that they speak Telugu / Kannada "as well".
Balikula is a clan, not a caste. Various members of a clan or a region (Balikula Nadu) cannot be professing the same occupation. So varna claims won't apply here. There is no point claiming that certain occupations / castes do not belong to Balijas. Neither do mother tongue claims apply in such case. The Banas existed during the Iron age Vedic period -- and at that time languages such as Telugu and Kannada did not exist. So no point trying to show that their mother tongue is telugu. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Since I personally know Telugu speaking Iyers and Iyengars who are of Tamil Origin and being a resident of Karnataka,I can accept that Balijas domiciled in Karnataka have adopted Kannada as a primary lingua francia and identify with Lingayats.I already gave proof of EVR's speech to show Kannada speaking Balijas exist.In fact,Kannada speaker percentage would be just 20% if you remove groups like Linga Balijas,Karnataka Iyengars,Tuluvas etc who have origins elsewhere but identify with the Kannada population.-Raghavan(Talk) 02:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Raghavan, Lingayaths are not sub-castes of Balijas. They are proper Kannadigas. Please stop making unsubstantiated claims. Please stop making baseless claims of 20% or whatever based on your personal knowledge. You are making edits merely for the sake of making edits without providing anything substantial. If you keep making changes without proper references, i will report you for vandalism. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Linga Balijas have been mentioned as a sub-caste by Sepuri Bhaskar. It is not correct. The Lingayaths or Veerashaivas are a social-group (and not a subcaste of balijas) from Karnataka. Balijas of Karnataka adopted Veerashaivism and became Lingayaths. They are proper Kannadigas, with Kannada as their mother-tongue. I will make the appropriate changes with proper references in the Balija article later. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm a Tamil from Karnataka and for a matter of fact Veerasaivism or Lingayatism which was founded by Basavanna is a faith like Smarthism or Srivaishnavism or Madhwa and not the name of a community.It was a social reform to eliminate Social Evils in Karnataka at that time.Lingayath is the title given to followers of Basavanna's ideals.They are found in many communities like Marathas,Bunts and Balijas as sub-castes.Veerasaivism is a faith and not confined to a particular community.I personally know a few Badagas who are a Nilgiris Tribe of Kannada Origin.There are 2 sub-castes among Badagas:Lingayath Badaga and Badaga Gowder.Hope that settles this issue of Lingayath being a specific caste.-Raghavan(Talk) 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional proof of Lingayats as sub-castes in other communities[4],[5].Followers of Veerasaivism originated in Karnataka but merged into other communities-Raghavan(Talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

One more fact:People who follow Veerasaivism identify themselves as Lingayats and not by their caste since the basic idea of Veerasaivism or Lingayatism is against Caste System having started as a social reform against the same as well as various other social evils.If you are really interested about Lingayatism,we can have a detailed discussion about this.-Raghavan(Talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply To Raghavan

Am not sure why you are giving me these explanations. You can discuss about Veerashaivism with whomever you want on the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lingayatism as you have already done. Thanks, but i am not interested in joining in there at the moment. Reg the mother tongue section in the Balija page, I had already mentioned to you above that Balijas who adopted Veerashaivism became Lingayaths (and yes, AFTER becoming lingayats they do not see caste differences). Those Balija converts are not of Telugu origin. They are proper Kannadigas. Kannada is their mother tongue. So you need not try to prove that they are Telugu people who speak Kannada "as well". --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Oh Ok,Maybe they are Kannadigas who got absorbed into the Balija grouping and later adopted Veerashaivism.Balijas seem to be a caste having a lot of mixed origins.-Raghavan(Talk) 10:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No they did not get 'absorbed' into balija grouping. They are proper kannadigas. Banas were a vedic period clan (clans then were already made up of an admixture of various tribes). At that time telugu, kannada did not exist. The banas got dispersed into various linguistic groups as these languages were formed. That is why you have Jats also claiming to have Bana origins. I suspect you have no understanding of how castes are formed, or much less about tribes. Its better guys like you restrict yourself to topics that you are knowledgeable abt instead of making edits without references like vandals. There is nothing called pure origins.

-= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

[6]And what about this classification in Sepuri Bhaskar's Book?It mentions both Telugu and Kannada speaking branches.There are some issues in the book however regarding Krishnadeva Raya's caste affiliation.As per my knowledge,he is a Tuluva and may at the maximum have Balija ancestry from his mother's side since it is believed by Kannada Historians that he was not of pure blue blood.-Raghavan(Talk) 10:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Am not sure what you intend to mean by pure blue blood. But only congenital fools in their infinitely bloated egos and stupidity beleive in something called being a pure breed. You need not bother abt krishnadevaraya. Some also say his mother Nagala devi was a vaishnavite. As you may be aware bali vamsa brahmanas (bana brahmanas) were present in nagamangala (mandya regions) (read the balija article ). Anyways, let us leave the job of finding out such stuff to historians. Btw, the tulus and banas are not unrelated either. It will take a lot of writing to put things in appropriate historical perspective. Will make related contributions to wiki over time. -= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC )Mayasutra . .

Yup,Krishnadeva Raya's maternal origins does seem a controversial topic since he was from a second wife of the king.I removed some edits today from Thanjavur Nayak article stating that his mother was from the Gandikota Kamma community and belonged to Pemmasani clan and Achyuta Raya married from his maternal family.Based on that,the editor wanted to say that Sevappa Nayak was a Kamma since he married Achyuta's sister in law.Actually in ancient India,marriages were done based on status and not caste.Krishnadeva Raya's sons in law Rama and Thirumala who founded the Areevati dynasty are Chandravamsi Kshatriyas in this regard.I also agree with your statement on caste origins.Every caste has mixed origins and some castes have a common ancestry.Like Kammas claim Chola and Kamboja origins while Agnikula Kshatriyas of Tamil Nadu claim Pallava,Hoysala and Ganga origins.The Agnikula Kshatriyas also apparently share a common ancestry with Chandravamsi Kshatriyas.-Raghavan(Talk) 16:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Raghavan, if you want to know how people meddled with geneologies after coming to power, read this (page 25): http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=3ygoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25&dq=krishnadeva+raya+nagala&hl=en&ei=bkFiTNjGLpCycbS86KUJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false So you see even inscriptions need not be correct (many commentators do not call Nagala Devi a princess. Nor do they consider Krishnadevaraya of legitimate birth). History was always written by the victors. And meddling with geneologies was not uncommon. Its just ego, my friend, the ego of having conquered which makes man fashion himself (and his descent) anyway he likes. IMO, all these caste and varna claims of kshatriya-hood by some groups begun only after the 8th century, after the vedic revival of Adi Shankara. And practically all of present-day castes (both in north and south) actually fashioned their varna claims during the British Raj. All crap IMO. Why, even the deification of gods (the ones we worship today as 'gods") is subject to debate (and so is their "descent"). In China too, when a king conquers a large territory, he considers it a sign of powers granted to him from the gods. He either fashions himself as the reincarnation of a god and/or elevates himself as a god. Do read about Qin_Shi_Huang. After becoming the Emperor of unified China, he titled himself as "di" and deified himself as god.

And am sorry for having been harsh to you in my notes yesterday. I have only one request from you. Please provide references esp when you change the dates. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Btw, if you wish to read more about sanis or sanivallu, you can do so on google books. You might also discover the close connection b/w pemmasanis and immadis (i think i have given enough clues, you can figure the rest). --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mother Tongue Section in Balija

If you don't mind,I reorganized the mother tongue section in Balija which was rather explicitly written IMO by giving a small intro.However,if you have any issues with my edits,you can revert them.:)-Raghavan(Talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Raghavan. No reverts on my part :) --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Rajakambalam Balijas

They are apparently Telugu speakers from areas like Bellary in present day Karnataka.Veerapandiya Kattabomman is belived to belong to this group.Could you get some information about these people?-Raghavan(Talk) 06:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One of Kattaboman's relatives works as a tour guide showing tourists around Panchalankurichi. Descendents of most of Kattaboman's extended families still live around that area. They are poor, many are illiterate and extracting info from them regarding old connections cud be futile. You can read about one of them here: http://www.maduraimessenger.org/printed-magazine/2008/october2008/history/ So far am not clear if the Rajakambalas were originally from Bellary or if they settled there at some point. They consider themselves either gollavars or similar to gollavars. Not all Rajakambalars are telugu speaking. You can also find tamil speaking ones who consider themselves proper tamilians (i suspect they are products of mergers with either kallars, or konars or vanniyars). Well, all this wud require proper field study instead of speculation on my part. Do let me know if you come across something. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Fixing Template Errors

I just managed to fix some template errors in Balija.Remember to first create a template and then insert it.-Raghavan(Talk) 04:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is here:Template:Caste Groups of India (Balija).Try to format it better.-Raghavan(Talk) 04:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Raghavan. I have edited it. On the page the template appears on the right and the left side is empty. Can you align the positioning in such a way that the template appears on the right and the contents-box appears on the left? Thanks again. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

No Idea,Templates of Vellalar and Kamma also come to the right in the template pages.-Raghavan(Talk) 12:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Reddy

I observed that this chaotic article has lot of fights related to whether Reddy is a social group or a honorary title.Reddy denotes a social grouping of many castes and is also used by communities like Kammas,Yadavas,Agnikula Kshatriyas and Vokkaligas as a title to denote a Village Headman.I presently have requested a move to Reddy(Social Group) to avoid further fights.Give your view on the talk page.-Raghavan(Talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is telepathy or what !! I was writing out a message to you on the Reddy Talk Page exactly the same time you were writing out the above message to me. Anyways Raghavan, please have a look at the Reddy talk Page. Reddy is a social group made up of several farming groups, some of whom claim to be sub-castes of Reddy (which they consider a caste). IMO, Reddy as a title is ancient and it will be difficult to trace the beginnings / origins of Reddy as a title (unless there is collective effort from professional historians to trace it as such); and therefore it makes more sense to keep Reddy as a social group / caste on wiki for now. Kapus who use Reddy as a title can mention the same in their article. There is no need to make a seperate article for "Reddy as a title". Raghavan, many thanks for helping me with the Balija article. I have now moved on to writing new articles for the red-links on the Balija page. Hope you will help me with them. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Districts of Madras Presidency

I started work on this article today.If you have any information related to the Telugu speaking areas which have now become part of Andhra,please do contribute.-Raghavan(Talk) 10:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gajulu Balija and Kavarai Balija

These two are apparently seperate sub-castes of Balija who have only in recent times started intermarrying with each other,that too only in a few parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.The Kavarai were basically Telugu speaking cultivators from Karnataka and adjoining areas of Andhra while the Gajulu were Bangle sellers from Andhra.Also the Kavarai happen to be the same as Gollavar,Rajakambalam,Tholuvan and Thottiyan.I request you to add the info about them as seperate sub-castes.Presently the Balija article clubs them as the same but it is true only in few parts of TN and Kerala.-Raghavan(Talk) 05:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kavarais are Gavaras (the Gavara article needs updating). You are not right in saying they were cultivators (See article on Gavara Komatis). Nope they are not from Karnataka either. The Gajulu are not bangle sellers either, there is sufficient info that they were manufacturers. The Kavarais are not the same as Gollas, Thottiyans, etc...i think you are have many baseless presumptions...if certain similarity markers are taken into account, then all the telugu castes can be collapsed into just a few major groups. I will make the required changes over time. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Oh Fine then,Seems there is actually lot of confusion since the caste manuals in British Period placed many groups in Balija.Adding to that is the Munnuru Kapu article which calls them as 300 Kavarai.Start an article on Arcot Royal Family as well.Sevappa Nayaka was from this family.-Raghavan(Talk) 08:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no confusion. Info is available but scattered around like pieces of jigsaw puzzles. They need to be sorted and fitted together to get a clearer picture. Balikula Nadu and Perumbanappadi were kingdoms, Obviously people of varied profession resided in such kingdoms. All of them (of any occupation) have the right to claim to be Balijas. Which they did in the colonial period. Mannuru Kapu article also needs cleaning up. The Gavara group is a classic example of a tribe-like caste that split and became a part of various present day castes like Komati, Balija and Kapu. Wrt tanjore nayaks, am not interested in creating articles for which info is yet to be published in book form. Library catalog numbers for olai leaves cannot be used as references. Thanks. And please do not bother me with requests. Am already working on quite a few articles and am busy. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Mayasutra

Merging Naidu with Nayak (title)

I've seconded your proposal to merge these articles and given a request here[7].-Raghavan(Talk) 05:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Districts of Madras Presidency

I've added information about all the Tamil Districts.As I don't know much about the Telugu Districts and Ganjam,I suggest you add the information.-Raghavan(Talk) 15:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaffna kingdom

Hello, thanks for editing the article. But be aware we have a main article called Aryacakravarti dynasty which links to Jaffna kingdom's Early history section. That article goes into every detail about different theories about the origins of the kings. In that article we have tried to try to keep to academic sources. In realistic terms Rasanayagam is not a real historian. We have used accredited historians like K. Pathmanathan, K.M De Silva, Patrick Peebles and even Parabavitahrana (who went mentally unstable in his later years) on that article. It too is a Good article and was reccomended for Featured article and due to lack of time did not take to that level. So the Jaffna Kingdom article just menions the consensus and readers who want more information about the Kings can alaways visit the Aryacakravarti article to understand it more. So ineffect we can trim the information you have added in Jaffna kingdom down to few sentences if it is not already covered. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kanatonian

Hi, Have undid your deletion. The main article does not mention the said info. Rasanayagam has been already been used as a reference in other parts of the Jaffna Kingdom article. Therefore, I see no harm in mentioning his research on the Arya Chakravarthis. The info I have added is just 2 short paragraphs on possible mythical claims of the rulers being brahmins as below.

C Rasanayagam mentions the view of a Portugese historian De Quieroz in his work "Ancient Jaffna"; wherein he mentions that some Brahmin natives of Gujarat became employed in the temple of Ramanacor (Rameshwaram) with the favor of the Nayak of Madura. One brahmin man from this group married a daughter of the Jaffna King and his descendents became the heirs of the Jaffna Kingdom [31]. From inscriptions it is gathered that Kalinga kings calling themselves as Aryas were ruling from 10th to 13th century in Jaffna. They were descendents of Ugra Singan who conquered Jaffna in 795 AD. C Rasanayagam explored the possibility if Ugra Singan, Kaliga Magha and Vijaya Kulingai Chakravarti were the same individual, after reasoning that Vijaya Kulangai Chakravarthi may not have been the son of Ugra Singan or the grandson of Tissa Ugra Chola[32].

C Rasanayagam also investigated why they called of themselves as Arya Chakravarthis; and states that when the Jaffna Kingdom fell into the hands of the Portugese in 1618, the Jaffna kings claimed to have descended from two Brahmins who were appointed by Rama himself after his conquest of Lanka and establishment of the Rameshwavaram temple. The Jaffna kings also claimed that Rama himself gave them the title of Arya and granted them the parasol and the emblem of Setu. Rasanayagam therefore suggested that the brahmin connection may have been mythical and adopted by the later kings as they grew in eminence [33].''

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Problems with upload of File:Perumbanappadi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Perumbanappadi.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion

I have replied to you in Talk:Kamma_(caste). Please give your response there.Foodie 377 (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

Hi Mayasutra, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions. We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

Message regrading Kamma article(Re)

Go ahead and request the block and we will see what they will do. You are saying who am I to decide? I ask, who are YOU to decide? This is Wikipedia. We go by a set of rules. And you just removing the varna amounts to WP:CENSOR. Stop your emotional blabbering. The very fact that you are dismissing that "it is not possible to have discussions on wiki pages about varna in dravidian speakers" shows your knowledge of the topic. Who told you varna does not exist in south India? It exists in south India but it has to be interpreted differently and should be taken in the right context. Please see the how Varna has been described in detail in Reddy article. If you think you have to explain how the upper shudra category came about to Kammas for a more fair and balanced view to readers, please write about in Kamma article instead of merely cribbing about the word "upper shudras". Please also connect with Kumarrao, who himself has clarified about Varna of Kammas. I have the conscience and guts to tackle varna topic in Reddy article. Seems like you do not have the substance necessary to tackle Varna in Kamma article and hence you are just emotionally petitioning that the "upper shudra" tag be removed. I am afraid that amounts to WP:CENSOR. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. If you feel that varna content should not be in the lead paragraph, then please create a new subsection. Or upon agreement I will create a new subsection. But removal of varna entirely from the article just because you dont like it is WP:CENSOR. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS.PS You are saying I have not contributed to Kamma article. I was the one who manually reconstructed the infobox when the template broke and none of the editors had the slightest idea on how to fix it. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

The Varna Status in the Reddy article is very well written and portrays the exact situation. I am very sorry i had not read the Varna Status description in the Reddy article before. If i had not read your contribution (and description reg Varna Status) in the Reddy article, i wud have continued to think differently (that you were merely involved in an edit war). But you have done an excellent job with your contribution. So again sorry, i meant no harm. Its a good idea to give a similar description in Kamma, Kapu, Balija, etc articles also. I hope Kumarrao will provide the relevant content for Kamma article while i shall do do so for the Kapu and Balija articles. The Kapu article is an utter mess and i shudder to even think of cleaning it up. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Varna status

You are right. I got confused while reading the material. I removed the sentence. I have read the Varna status in Balija article. It is very good and does go into a lot of detail. It is very comprehensive. I will read it a few more times, if any concerns, I will message you. Foodie 377 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that section at Balija was very good. It was also too detailed by far and should instead have been in an article about the varna system in general rather than one community in particular. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reverts at Balija

Please take it to the article talk page. When you do silly things such as say "copyvio is no reason to delete" then you are treading on extremely thin ice. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Style

Please can you read WP:REFPUNC, and also try to cite things properly. It looks like you have been here for a while but are still struggling with these basic issues. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Balija shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Message to Sitush / Your edits at the Balija article

1) You may reserve the right to screw your own edits. That does not mean you go back and forth like this and remove internal links to Dedh and Sathani like this. The chattada / sattada srivaishnavas are popularly known as Sathani or Chattadi. If you indicate the need for clarity in that regard, i can post info on that. And also develop content on the Sathanis/Chattadis/Chattadas in the Sathatha_Sri_Vaishnava article. Without indicating any such thing, its not a good idea to simply remove links/stuff. If the problem is with the citation format style, then please deal with that only.

2) Your edits are appreciated. Your warning of breaking a three-revert rule is not. I reinstated the Sepuri Bhaskar source only ONCE. Not sufficient for you to issue a block warning as you did. Wud have appreciated if you discussed stuff / citations / sources on talk page (or explained why its a weak source or violates copyright), or asked for additional citations, before making massive edits.

3) Do not rush to delete stuff like this just because you are not aware of the synonyms, banajiga and balija. Instead you can ask for a citation / reference for that particular point in the talk page (just FYI only for now, maybe sources in this link will help -- will post relevant content in the article soon though: http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/2270/7/UOM-1982-1410-6.PDF )

4) I also suggest you refrain from words like 'nonsense', and views like which state is much worse than before. Instead it wud be better if you explain your reasons sufficiently pointwise and issuewise, on the talk page, otherwise it appears that you are pushing your own pov.

5) I do only 2 things for wiki -- post content and donate financially -- in whatever ways i can. If the citation format is incorrect, please correct it yourself. I thot wiki is a joint effort of people, not a job where an employee needs to get nearly everything right.

6) I will be re-doing the whole article (with citations in the right format/style as best as i can). I shall post the dates on your userpage. During the said period, i wud appreciate if you stop tinkering with the article and raise relevant issues in the talk page instead.

7) Am aware Varna content from Balija article, belongs to a seperate larger article. However, i put things in brief on the Balija article (as a synopsis) since it is relevant to the article to explain why varnas were resisted by them or do not apply to that group (will be adding additional info / re-doing that part also though). There is an overload of information on Varna stuff. I shall make a different article on that.

Regards.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Khatri

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khatri. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. It has been explained to you that you should not do this. Wikipedia works on consensus and things should be discussed when contentious, not simply reverted. I suggest that you self-revert and take it to the article talk page. Sitush (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Now take it to the article talk page, please. Spreading conversations across numerous talk pages is not a solution. The article talk pages are the most appropriate venue because they attract a wider audience. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have had a "bad" day fixing up puffery etc on various articles allegedly related to the Kapu community. The situation as presented on Wikipedia is extremely confusing, probably because people are contributing to what they consider to be their "own" bit of the jigsaw puzzle but are not seeing the bigger picture. There are contradictions and multiple claims made across this series of seemingly connected articles. Sometimes it makes more sense to reduce them to the core stuff that can be verified to reliable sources and has consensus. I apologise if my attitude has irked you but stand by my edits. I am, of course, not always correct but the best venue for these discussions must surely be the talk pages of the articles rather than the pair of us to-ing and fro-ing across our own talk pages. There is currently a community-wide discussion about the notion of saying that Wikipedia is not about "truth" but about "verifiability" - I have no particular opinion and have not contributed to that discussion, but this seems to me to be a classic instance of where the two ideas can conflict. Until the community agrees otherwise, verifiability is the standard, as per WP:V and WP:RS. I know that it can be frustrating, believe me- Sitush (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sitush

Sitush, i have replied to your Khatri article here. Please follow it up on your user page. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Archiving discussions with Sitush

Since Sitush deleted everything here am archiving the discussions on this user page. This is to enable other editors to understand the necessity to reach common consensus before editors delete stuff.

Your edits at the Balija article

1) You may reserve the right to screw your own edits. That does not mean you go back and forth like this and remove internal links to Dedh and Sathani like this. The chattada / sattada srivaishnavas are popularly known as Sathani or Chattadi. If you indicate the need for clarity in that regard, i can post info on that. And also develop content on the Sathanis/Chattadis/Chattadas in the Sathatha_Sri_Vaishnava article. Without indicating any such thing, its not a good idea to simply remove links/stuff. If the problem is with the citation format style, then please deal with that only.

2) Your edits are appreciated. Your warning of breaking a three-revert rule is not. I reinstated the Sepuri Bhaskar source only ONCE. Not sufficient for you to issue a block warning as you did. Wud have appreciated if you discussed stuff / citations / sources on talk page (or explained why its unsuitable for wiki or violates copyright), or asked for additional citations, before making massive edits.

3) Do not rush to delete stuff like this just because you are not aware of the synonyms, banajiga and balija. Instead you can ask for a citation / reference for that particular point in the talk page (just FYI only for now, maybe sources in this link will help -- will post relevant content in the article soon though: http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/2270/7/UOM-1982-1410-6.PDF )

4) I also suggest you refrain from words like 'nonsense', and views like which state is much worse than before. Instead it wud be better if you explain your reasons sufficiently pointwise and issuewise, on the talk page, otherwise it appears that you are pushing your own pov.

5) I do only 2 things for wiki -- post content and donate financially -- in whatever ways i can. If the citation format is incorrect, please correct it yourself. I thot wiki is a joint effort of people, not a job where an employee needs to get nearly everything right.

6) I will be re-doing the whole article (with citations in the right format/style as best as i can). I shall post the dates on your userpage. During the said period, i wud appreciate if you stop tinkering with the article and raise relevant issues in the talk page instead.

7) Am aware Varna content from Balija article, belongs to a seperate larger article. However, i put things in brief on the Balija article (as a synopsis) since it is relevant to the article to explain why varnas were resisted by them or do not apply to that group (will be adding additional info / re-doing that part also though). There is an overload of information on Varna stuff. I shall make a different article on that.

Regards.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Request Article Check

Hello Sitush, I have redone the intro and the origins section of the Balija article. Please check and if issues exist, please list them in the article's talk page I will respond in a day or maximum within two days. I will redo another section by the end of this week and will inform you when i do so. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sources are poor, phrasing is poor, you have yet again ignored WP:REFPUNC on a huge scale, you appear to be engaging in synthesis and your citations are not great. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain on the talk page of the Balija article, which sources and phrasings are poor, where WP:REFPUNC has been ignored. You can edit to improve citations. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

I have already twice linked you to the REFPUNC article. Please read it. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Already did. Instead of making pronouncements (so generalised), please explain on the talk page. Let me know where it has gone missing in the intro and origins sections. Also, is there a wiki admin / editor i can contact who is willing to spend time on this (i dunno if you are one, but not you, looking for someone else - how do i contact an admin guy?). Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

For starters: Full stop, then citation. Not the other way round. Plenty of admins watch this page - they will jump in as and when. For now, I am just letting you work on the article & not editing it, as per your request. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Will do the full stop, then citation. When it comes to formatting style as per wiki guidelines, surely you can do it yourself (not sure if wiki is expecting every content developer to get everything right). Again, wud appreciate if you cud explain on the talk page of the Balija article, which sources and phrasings are poor, and other issues which exist with WP:REFPUNC. Your feedback can help me improve. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Khatri article

I refer to your deletion here. Ofcourse results vary. Is there a specific reason why you would call it trivia? Is there a rule / policy that wiki does not want a section on genetic studies wrt caste? Btw, i just added to existing content and am fine with the deletion. But just curious to know wiki stand on this...--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

There does seem to be a convention of sorts about this genetic stuff. The problem is that different studies produce different results, the samples are small and the language used in the papers is pretty esoteric. Including info such as this would require expert attention, and on the odd occasion that has happened it has been the case that the content was removed. Let's face it, we are ultimately all connected to everyone else, so cherry-picking from among the hundreds of genetic studies is always going to be a fraught process & the connections are "trivia". Caste articles are prone to puffery and a lot of the genetic papers are used for just that reason: in many ways, it appears to be a continuation of the Sanskritisation process. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed we are all connected. But cannot agree there are hundreds of studies. Caste-specific genetic studies are very limited (even in the Khatri case you cannot get more than 10 or so research projects/studies/papers). If very large variation is there in samples collected, then sample size need not be a big issue, again depending on which reason the sample is being studied for. Results can vary based on a few things. Depends on the experimental design. You can either choose STRs or SNPs. Then you have a choice of yDNA or mtDNA or autosomal DNA. Also, depends on samples of castes/tribes you want to study/compare against. Cannot expect to compare Khatri with Bagata and Chamar, and expect every single Khatri sample to demarcate only from Bagata and not from Chamar. Agreed some users here try to project things only one-way which is no good (imo, indians suffer from a sickness called "casteist genetic exclusivity"; and nobody want to agree to mixed origins from various tribes, social units, etc. It always about 'varna greatness', 'community interest', and a highly exclusive descent, ya know ;) ). Anyways, all said and done, wud like to know Wiki's official policy on this. Does wiki allow or disallow a section on caste-based genetic studies? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Like I said, there appears to be a convention. The stuff gets removed all the time, and for the reasons that I have stated and that you appear to confirm. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Is there a Wiki site on these conventions? Pertaining to caste-based genetic studies? Also i did not confirm your contentions. I'll agree language used by users here is the selective puffed up kind. But i disagree about variation across results as it wud depend on what you are looking at. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

I can explain no better than I already have done, sorry. Statements such as "Caste-specific genetic studies are very limited (even in the Khatri case you cannot get more than 10 or so research projects/studies/papers)" made by you tend to confirm the point. Are you a scientist working in the genetic field? - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno what you understood from that one sentence and cannot help if you choose to make selective conclusions. What i do is immaterial to this topic. All i want to know is does wiki have an official policy in disallowing caste-based genetic studies ?? If yes, where can i read about it? Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sure - WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Looked at WP:CONSENSUS. Where's the consensus on caste based genetic studies? Hope other wiki admin will jump in and let us know wiki's stand on this issue?? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Khatri Contd

Sitush, in the issue mentioned above, i find there is No Convention and No Consensus on having a section on caste based genetic studies, on WP:CONSENSUS or elsewhere (except for your own peculiar conclusions and individual views on deletion). I take it that i can reinstate the part deleted by you in the Khatri article. If other wiki admin have an issue with this, please raise it on the talk page and i shall delete the content promptly. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Nope. You are battling all over the place now. Please stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

??? I don't know if i have transgressed any rules?? I'll delete the part on the Khatri article for now. But am expecting you or any other wiki admin to explain why content on caste based genetic studies should not be put up on wiki article. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Re to your apology note

Sitush, thanks for the apology note you posted on my userpage. I do appreciate the apology, but the reasons do not really gel. I do not know how wiki works or who are the admins. Obviously some things are not right here.

You deleted the portion on caste-based genetic studies in the Khatri article without a plausible reason. I searched for more than half an hour on wiki and thru google, and found no consensus, no conventions, nothing prohibiting a user from mentioning results of caste based genetic studies on wiki articles. Therefore, i reinstated the part you deleted in Khatri article. Yet you go and paste a warning on my userpage for 'edit wars'. Why?

I would also like to know how come you did not issue the same warning to your own self for deleting stuff on Khatri article without proper reasons.

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Some notes

Am posting this on your userpage because i would like other admins to be involved in this. Am still waiting for other admins to jump in. Dunno if anyone reads this page at all.

Sorry to say, sitush but you are not doing a good enuf job. Despite requesting, you have not explained which sources and phrasings are poor in the Balija article in the intro/origins sections, and which other issues exist with WP:REFPUNC. Until you do that am not willing to develop remaining sections there or content anywhere else. It would be a waste of time, if after all the writing, you simply claim the phrasings/sources are poor; and go on a deletion rampage.

I do not know what sort of phrasings/sources are acceptable to you admin guys. Please make a page listing pointwise what is permissible on wiki and what is not - something that will apply to all caste articles.

I looked at some of your past edits yesterday, including the ones you did in Ezhava, Nair, Tulu Nadu, and Yadav. You deleted people names in the Yadav article saying "there was no verification that they were in fact Yadavs" and that "bearing yadav name" is insufficient (See here).

When it comes to caste, i dunno what sort of verification wiki or you expect. Take a look at this list and this List_of_Iyers - there is no proof that their forefathers were either brahmins or iyers /iyengars. Obviously your contention applies there too (ie, simply bearing the name Iyer and Iyengar is insufficient). How come you are not deleting stuff from there?

You yourself mentioned sanskritisation yesterday. So how are you going to verify origins, and claims of any individual who himself professes to belong to a particular caste? How do you verify that an individual Ezhava did not go on to become a Nair? In the 1921 census the Reddys listed themselves as Kapus. Obviously social sensibilities in 1921 were different (it was before the reddy rise in the last part of the colonial period), apparently being a Kapu was considered a better social position then. So how do you verify present day claims of reddys being associated or claiming to descend from a reddy kingdom?

A 'kamma' from coimbatore does not have the same customs as a 'kamma' from warangal. A vadama from thirunelvei of bharadwaja gotra may be R1 haplogroup while a vadama of the same bharadvaja gotra in chennai can be J2 haplogroup. Again, a 'khatri' from chandigarh need not be genetically similar to a 'khatri' from jalandhar, though both may profess the surname bedi.

We are obviously talking of social groups within which pockets of people have different origins. It gets even more complicated with trade guilds, as members came from diverse origins, each with their own mythical or real cultural claims.

The census enumerators, epigraphists, etc of colonial india obviously did not do a complete job. To add to the confusion, there were contests over varna claims. People fought, adopted new customs, even changed the name of their caste, did a lot of nonsense really.

Then you had the probs with priests. Obviously priests came from diverse origins themselves, which is why you had the situation in colonial india where specific priests offered their services to specific castes. Imo, with all the cultural infighting, it is impossible to think the priestly classes wud ever have united, if not for the anti-brahmanism movement.

All the caste mess has continued till date, and wiki has to find a way to fix multiple issues associated with this subject (unless ofcourse wiki bans all caste-based articles on its site). I hope wiki admin folks get together for a consensus and decide on the following:

1) Which sources are acceptable? -> Will a hindi source with laloo prasad yadav himself claiming to be a yadav, suffice to include him in the yadav list? -> If a source mentions something that can be construed as 'caste puffery' to one individual but 'normal' to another individual, is it acceptable to wiki?

2) Please provide guidelines on the phrasings. Also, it is impossible for anyone to prove descent from old social groupings. So broad guidelines on how multiple origin theories are to be presented on wiki, will help greatly.

3) Is it acceptable to post results of caste based genetic studies?

4) If an admin guy deletes stuff in one article, but permits similar content in another, it could be construed as bias. To prevent that, please consider having a group of people as admins supervising caste articles.

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

As I have said previously, please take these issues to the relevant article talk pages. You may also wish to read WP:OSE and WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry Sitush, you are being ambiguous. I realise discussing on talk pages is no use. In the case of the Khatri article, it was your own POV to disallow certain stuff. Despite discussing, you still issued a block warning, for reverting the portion on caste genetics just once. Is reverting just once (and that too after discussing) sufficient for you to issue such a block warning? I wud like to know this from other admin folks.

In the Balija article also, you issued a block warning for reverting the sepuri bhaskar source just once. Despite requesting, you have not yet explained which sources and phrasings are poor in the Balija article in the intro/origins sections, and which other issues exist with WP:REFPUNC. Your edits in various caste articles looks like you are battling everywhere. But without common consensus. Perhaps you expect folks to follow WP:BRD. Considering that you issue block warnings, disallow content as you please, i don't think WP:BRD is going to work.

A common consensus is required for this. Its not for folks like me to decide what is permissable or not on wiki. If you are the admin doing the demolition job please discuss with whoever else is in charge, and make guidelines.

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

---

WRT shramana

This is the first message i left on ForestTeacher's talk page. He blanked it out after i wrote to Sitush. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ForestTeacher&diff=476067849&oldid=475524300

Then ForestTeacher left this message on my talk page:

Message from ForestTeacher

My dear Mayasutra

It is not my intent in any way to engage in an edit war here. I would have gladly left the entire Shramana page alone, had it not been for random people coming on to the Upanishad page trying to insert stuff about Sramanas into the lead. After a while I got tired of having to deal with them.

I don't think you can single me out for Edit warring. It takes two hands to clap, and I'd say you were equally involved in that exchange on the Sramana page. That being said, I am sorry if your train of thought got interrupted while editing.

It is clearly obvious for anyone to see, that the chief thrust of this page seems to be to present the Sramanas as an alternative to Brahmins. And based on previous experience, it is only a matter of time before it degenerates into Brahmin-hatred and name-calling. Which is why I was trying to put in material which noted that plenty of Brahmins have been Sramanas and were an integral part of the movement, though many of its initiators may have been Kshatriya.

In case you have felt otherwise, let me make it clear that I have nothing against Sramanas or their antiquity or their obvious influence on everything Hindu. What I have a problem with is Brahmin-bashing - i.e Portraying a 5% minority in India as Satan incarnate because their ancestors wrote some books that endorsed hierarchy.

You are accusing me of selective quoting - well they were not quotes, they were my paraphrasing of certain things that had been said by respected authors. Non-Brahmin, Non-Hindu authors. Obviously I put forward material that supported the points I was interested in making - and I believe on reading the sources it is fairly transparent that the authors intend to say something not too different from what I wrote on Wikipedia.

Let me also add here that I believe an adjective like "parrot-like", even if it is present in your source, is not something that needs to be put on Wikipedia. At the very least, it belongs inside quotation marks. And your source is Ananda Guruge - whom you have used not once but twice. It needs to be clear that the source who called certain traditions Parrot-like was "active in international Buddhist leadership, Professor Guruge is a Vice President of the World Fellowship of Buddhists, the Patron of the European Buddhist Union, and the Dean of Academic Affairs and Director of the International Academy of Buddhism at University of the West (formerly Hsi Lai University) in Rosemead, California.[3] He is also an adjunct professor of Buddhism, Hinduism and Peace Studies at California State University, Fullerton. Dr. Guruge is also the Liaison Officer to the United Nations and UNESCO for the World Fellowship of Buddhists; and is currently the Chairman of the World Buddhist University Council. He serves as an editor of Hsi Lai Journal of Humanistic Buddhism." Not exactly your dream of a neutral authoritative source. It is like those Hindu nationalists quoting Koenraad Elst all over the place.

In contrast, please note that my references were all sources that were already in the article. I mean I actually quoted Padmanabh Jaini multiple times. A Jain author.

Perhaps I could merely create a subsection under sramana movement to illustrate the relationship with Brahmins. Would that be acceptable to you?

I have no real interest in hijacking your Sramana article. All my efforts were solely directed towards providing counterbalances to the anti-brahmin tilt of some passages.

Thank you for your time.ForestTeacher (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I almost forgot - If you want to accuse me of selective quoting, I would like to direct you to the edit where you changed the word "other" as mentioned in the source, to "older". :P Then again, such things happen, I think one ought to forgive and forget and move on.ForestTeacher (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ForestTeacher

Am concerned with the article. I cannot care about your personal POVs on unrelated stuff like brahmin-basing, satan, and such crap. You even misquoted Padmanabh Jaini, which i set right - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476069702&oldid=476067379 In the name of your so-called "counter-balance" what you are doing is misquoting stuff. Sorry but i think you are involved in an edit war. So what if Ananda Guruge mentioned "parrot-like" repetition. So what if Ananda Guruge "is an international Buddhist preacher and leader". I mention what i find in the sources. If you change words, sentences, as per your own personal POVs, ofcourse i will have to change it as per the sources. Its obvious you are heavily concerned about so called anti-brahmanism. Hence you are into obfuscating. You can do what you want with the article. Am not interested in talking about this with you.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Reply from ForestTeacher

I don't understand what you are getting so angry about. As this is a talk page, I just wanted to tell you my personal views on why I did what I did. How is that a reason for you to get so offended? And I did not misquote Padmanabh Jaini. Nobody can call that misquoting. Jaini, Collins, Upinder Singh and multiple others have said similar things. And "obfuscating"? That means writing material in a way that is hard to understand. When did I ever do that? As for anti-brahminism, yes I am very concerned about any attempt to paint a minority group as the symbol of all evil. Whether that be Muslims, Christians, Brahmins or anyone else.

Anyway OK look I am not interested in quarreling with you either, I won't make any further changes, hope that makes you happy.ForestTeacher (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ForestTeacher

lol, looks like you are really offended and angry. Ofcourse you misquoted sources and obfuscated. Here is a sample (let admin take note):

1) You wrote "In later centuries, perhaps as an attempt to assimilate into society at large, even Sramana writers like Jinasena produced lawbooks which declared that the Varna system was not of Brahminical origin, but had, in fact, been created by the first Jain Tirthankara Vrsabha."

This is your own POV. You gave a wrong portrayal of varna system. To correct you, i wrote the historical context in which jainas wrote law books here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476069702&oldid=476067379

In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in the South could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century, Jinasena produced Jain lawbooks in the guise of puranas glorifying Jain Thirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present kalpa'. Vrashabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain-brahmans.

2) You wanted to portray as though largest number of monks who made up though Shramana movements were brahmins. This is quite an lol point. Collins mentions this in the context of Buddhism, but you twisted it, used selective portions of Collins work to obfuscate and wrote this:

"However, it has been noted by authors such as Randall Collins that some offshoots of the Shramana movement like Buddhism were actually more of reform movements within the educated religious classes (which was mostly composed of Brahmins), than rival movements from outside these classes. The largest number of monks in the early movement were of Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society. Similarly, a group of eleven Brahmins was the first to accept the Jainism preached by Mahavira, becoming his chief disciples or Ganadharas.

So I corrected your obfuscation, quoted the reference exactly word by word in the References section here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476062909&oldid=476058427 , and wrote this paragraph in the text section: With regard to Buddhism, Randall Collins opined that Buddhism was more of reform movement within the educated religious classes, composed mostly of Brahmins, than a rival movement from outside these classes, with the largest number of monks in the early movement derived from Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Reply from ForestTeacher

Well its good you arent as offended as you sounded previously. On the other hand, let any admin take note of my inputs, I have nothing to hide. Let me also highlight once again, while you accuse me of selective quoting, what you did was openly change a crucial word while quoting from a reference in an attempt to alter the entire meaning of the quote. "Other" became transformed into "Older".

1. Buddhism is kind of THE standard bearer for Shramana tradition, as you are probably aware. I wrote that some offshoots of Shramana traditions like Buddhism were Brahmin dominated. Your "correction" is actually no different from what I had written, (which is why I had no problem with it) except that the grammar is worse. "With regard to Buddhism, Randall Collins opined that Buddhism". Clearly superfluous use of the word Buddhism here. And look closer at where I put it recently - after a para where it was said that "some Shramanas" went very far in their denunciation of Brahmins. So when the subject under discussion is subgroups of Shramanas in relation to Brahmins, obviously the normal thing to do is to write about the most important subgroup i.e Buddhism. Show me where I imply that all the Shramanas were mostly Brahmins. I am clearly talking about early Buddhism here.

2. The reason I dont quote references completely word by word in the references section is that I would have to read and memorize and type them word by word, since I am unable to copy paste. It is too much effort.

3. About the Jinasena thing - I have no problem with your expansion of the material I wrote. It detracts little from the basic point under discussion. I put that after the Dharmakirti quote, which is followed by an explanation saying that four of the five things criticized by Dharmakirti are brahminical, while the fifth, asceticism, is Shramanical. Obviously, that seems to imply that only Brahmins had written works supporting hereditary caste system, while shramanas never had. Which, in the light of the fact that Jinasena had written something similar, is patently false. Jinasena may have had a hundred great reasons to write casteist works, but that does not wash away the fact that later Jain scholars also did write casteist stuff. Again I have no problem with the extra context you gave, it doesnt divert from my essential point.

4. You yourself have quoted selectively. Randall Collins, in the sentence just prior to your quote given in my talk page, writes "Buddhism gave the caste system renewed significance by making it part of one's religious duties to carry out the activities proper to one's station in life" Hah. And you tried to paper over that by writing "..." in its place and skipping over to the next sentence in a hurry. LOL. And you are accusing me of obfuscating and misquoting. Really, Maya... ForestTeacher (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I dont dispute the ancientness of the Jain tradition. So I am not quaking with fear now that you have written that new line into the article. My only problem was that you had wilfully changed Other to Older. If you are providing a new reference, thats fine, go for it. I suspect I have read before that Shaivism might be older still, but then again I dont have the energy to search for a reference for that.ForestTeacher (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

=Reply to ForestTeacher

You seem to be a master obfuscator (expected this).

1) Obviously Buddhism is not the standard bearer for sharamana traditions. Your contention that you are "clearly talking about early Buddhism here" is plain falsity. Its obvious you are just playing around to push your obfuscations.

2) I don't quote references word by word either. In this case i had to do it bcoz of your obfuscations.

3) Rubbish. You quoted varna system out of context, you never wrote anything about the historical context in which Jinasena / law-books of jains thru puranas came into being.

4) Ofcourse buddhist monks depended on patronisation by the wealthy. People got fooled by the concept of "earning" good karma. Early buddhist traditions upheld caste system for its own survival. With your edit conflicts, obfuscations, moving content, how can anyone expect to complete writing an article. Am not interested in jumping to support buddhists, like how you jump to do obfuscations for brahmins, lol

Anyways now you have the article all to yourself. You can do what you want with it. Am not writing on that page anymore. All obfuscations someday come to a nought. Keep trying to manipulate content for all you will. Lets see how the future comes to pass. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Stop inserting Shamanism into the Shramana article

Stop inserting Shamanism into the Shramana article. I am sure that ForestTeacher and Ian.thomson both agree with me on this. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to do so, further action will be taken. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

=Reply to SaibabaVenkatesh

I thot i left the article. But after seeing your message, i created a new section, and added additional content, to cover the controvery between the terms 'Shramana' and 'Shaman' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476224484&oldid=476184055

Let the admin decide where to move the content. Pl note, the content does pertain to Shramana traditions.

As Znamenski puts it there is a connection between the two phenomenon (ie., between shramana traditions and shamanism), but there are those "...Owing to different motives, did not wish to understand it.."

i suppose those who feel insecure are the ones who censure speech the most. Wonder how much and how long can certain folks keep supressing or obfuscating content.

Anyways, am very well aware wiki is not the right place for wholesome content development. Sooner or later things get deleted. Thanks --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To make it clear, you are part of the edit war

Your recent editing history at Shramana shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just coming to leave the same message. While responding to your comments at User Talk:Sitush, and reviewing the history of Shramana, it's clear that you are edit warring just as much or maybe even more than others. Now is the time to stop edit warring and discuss the issue on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Qwyrxian

Hi, this is being discussed on Talk:Shramana page. Despite the ongoing discussion, Saibaba Venkatesh goes on deleting. Please see log - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&action=history

I agree i reverted what Saibaba Venkatesh deleted. But i wonder why Saibaba Venkatesh is not getting warned? He even calls names (idiot) [see the Talk:Shramana page], yet does not get warned. Why?

I find this dubious. C.Fred puts a edit warning on my page at a time when i added additional content and created a seperate section just ONCE. However, the same guy (C.Fred) lets Saibaba Venkatesh off so lightly [See User_talk:SaibAbaVenkatesh page]. As regards you, again, you too have not taken Saibaba Venkatesh to task, for repetedly deleting without consensus and calling names. Yet you come and paste this message on my page.

Btw, i wud like to know how this three-revert rule works. I just now corrected italics and spelling in the article. Wud that be considered breaking the three-revert rule? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476236734&oldid=476233739

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Balija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Iyengar". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 18 June 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Arguably, Sitush and I are also parties to that mediation, and thus should probably be invited as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, the Formal Mediation format asks for "Users involved in dispute". Therefore i did not add you and Sitush, because the filing party mentions users with whom the dispute is with. In this case, the filing party (that is, me) had no dispute with you and Sitush. Hence did not add you. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Civility

A complaint concerning your phrasing etc on talk pages has been raised at User talk:Sitush#User:Mayasutra.27s behaviour in the Iyengar:talk page. You and I have dealt with each other in the past and I can recall no real issues such as this, aside from your tendency to post long reams of text. You will also be aware that I am not free from sin myself: I get frustrated from time to time. However, without really digging into the history, I think that we should all try to tone things down a little at Talk:Iyengar and any related discussions. Neither mediation nor any other dispute resolution method is likely to work if the issue becomes personalised. I am sure that you are aware of the formula: "discuss the content, not the contributor". Best. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, looks like Hari7478 is making a lot of noise without accepting the Formal Mediation filed. Please ask him to sign the party agreement first. I read thru Hari7478's posts at your userpage and at ANI. Let him allege all he wants to. I have been very civil and patient with him. But i seriously cannot suffer fools who misquote and attribute their own POVs to published data which states no such thing. This guy has absolutely no background in genetics -- on this point i can bet my life on. And yet he pushes his POV using genetics. Can't get sillier. Let mediators and their intervention do their job. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

ANI

You have been mentioned at WP:ANI - see here. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, request you to guide Hari7478 to sign the party agreement here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Iyengar

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I cannot do that. If Hari does not want to be bound by the process then that is their choice. As it happens, I am also wary regarding how the thing has been proposed, and it is a malformed request. There are at least four contributors to that discussion, although you name only two, and if it were not for the fact that you and Hari keep posting huge and often repetitive screeds then it is probable that the issue would have been resolved by now. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree abt the request being malformed because the problem has not been with other contributors to the article. You and others took part in discussions on the talk page but were not into reinstating points on ethnicity-gentics. The only editor who engaged me and kept actively pushing the genetics POV for an aryan origin was Hari7478. And its not recent. Hari7478 has been pushing misuse of genetic studies since 2009. I brought the Formal Mediation taking his entire edit log into consideration. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

This is not the first occasion when you have dug your heels in, I know. Go take a look at the mediation page, top right-hand side, and explain to me why the infobox there contains errors. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can please guide me how do i fix the errors in the mediation box? I thot i filled in all fields. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Ok done, fixed the string error in the mediation page, top right-hand side infobox. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Despite having had many disputes in my time here, I have never had the need to be involved in that particular mediation process. The infobox still looks wrong to me. Perhaps a bot sorts it out later.

I still think that you are incorrect to exclude other participants in the dispute, as Qwyrxian also mentions above. In fact, if it were really a two-party dispute then WP:3O would probably have been the best resolution option. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Went thru all filing options, and read thru rules before filing. Seems ok to me. There is no dispute between you, me and Qwyrxian. Hence did not mention you. Because the bot is specific in asking "Users involved in dispute". Regards. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

No, you are misreading or misunderstanding the process. Since Q and I have commented, we are involved. I don't think that you and I even agree, so it is incorrect to say that there is no dispute between us. The same probably applies to Qwryxian, although obviously I cannot really speak for them. As things stand, your proposal has the look of being an attempt at "divide and rule", although that may not be your intention. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to distract from the issues raised here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#For_Dispute_Mediation There has been no dispute points between you and me; pertaining those specific issues raised. So i do not know what to mention if i include you and Qwryxian as dispute points. Please drop your accusative tone and personal allegation of "divide and rule". You are being unnecessarily personally accusative. And its not the first time. Btw, if you want to be involved in the mediation process, no one is stopping you. Thanks, --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sitush, am very sorry. Please forgive me. Found that you can add your points under Additional Issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Iyengar I think the only point on which we disagree (and its not a dispute really) is whether or not results of caste-based genetic studies can be added to an article. Perhaps this point can be added to the Formal Mediation board, though i sincerely suggest not to do so for now (it wud be distracting from the real issues raised). Please i hope you will understand. I just don't know why i felt hurt and ending up writing like that. Please, am very sorry. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User_talk:Sitush#User:Mayasutra.27s_behaviour_in_the_Iyengar:talk_page. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

You are being unnecessarily provocative in a thread that concerned alleged incivilities on your part. There really is no need for this behaviour. Sitush (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that i have apologized on your user page, am hoping Hari7478 agrees to sign the party agreement.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Request for mediation concerning Iyengar

It has come to my attention that you have initiated a mediation process with Hari7478. If you have not done so already, please post a link to the arbitration page on this user's talk page so that s/he is made aware of the process. Hari 7478 has to agree to arbitration, otherwise your request will be rejected. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 08:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I posted a message on Hari7478's user page, but he/she deleted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hari7478&diff=497100246&oldid=497063909 Hari7478 has indicated his unwillingness yesterday on Sitush's user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Messy_Article-_Iyengar But dunno if he could have changed his mind today. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I suspect that it will fail but, as I said to you yesterday, don't panic about the situation. Myself and Qwyrxian (who is likely to be busy this week) both have quite a lot of experience in dealing with these caste-related conflicts and I am sure that we can sort something out. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. My only contention is no misquoting published data to push own POVs. Whatever Hari7478 or others wish to state (aryan, indo-aryan, migration from north india or anything else), please let them find sources which state so, and quote the source correctly. If they look hard enough, am sure they can find such sources. But no misquoting. These caste issues are contentious really. Am guilty of flying off the handle many a time. Unlike you, was aware of castes, but knew nothing about caste-issues until a few years back when i started looking into socio-political issues pertaining to castes; and why so many differences within the religion i identified with. Took me on an amazing 'journey of identity' with all its civilizational trappings. Maybe i associated with the journey too much. So when the hollowness of it all came face to face labor pains began inside the head -- its been breaking all forms of attachment free. Added to it my genome journey took me on an ancient route and vanished into untraceable oblivion. Made me realize the spirit is independent of the body. Neither spirit nor body has a beginning --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Iyengar, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bahlika Culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gauda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, have made appropriate additions in Gauda page. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Āgama (Hinduism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Iyengars

I noticed a huge number of people added to this chaotic list whose caste/origin is uncertain without citing any article,some non-notable persons were also added.Deleted a number of such names.Do keep a watch over the page.Raghavan(Talk) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

VELLALAR/VELIR

You have delibaretely removed this part from Kerala Studies book: ""But this does not mean the Vellālars may not be the descendants of the Vēlir; probably they are; but the words Veļļālar, Vēļāņmai, Vēļālar, are derived from their art of irrigation and cultivation rather than from their original chieftainship."!!... The author do not question the genetic connection but the etymological one!... The fact that you removed this part shows clearly your agenda !... See user Sitush, books written or using colonial era cannot used as refs. No need to put so much in this article, it is about Kshatriya not Vellalar, this can be discussed in the vellalar page. I'm talking about nobility, not telling that velllalars are descendent of Tamil Royal lineages. I have many other refs from recently written books. I will show if needed.Rajkris (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are some recent refs: [8], [9]; "There is fairly strong literary and archeological evidence linking core Vellala subcastes with a group chieftains called Velir,..." [10]. Just avoid using colonial era or brahmin written books to lower vellalar image. I also read a scientific article which shew that vellalars came from north india around 3000 years ago based on genetics studies.Rajkris (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Just some other recent refs: [11], [12]...

Reply to Rajkris

Please do not lie. I was the one who provided that reference (from the Journal of Kerala Studies) on the Vellalar article in the first place nor did i remove it from this page (reference -- "But this does not mean the Vellālars may not be the descendants of the Vēlir; probably they are; but the words Veļļālar, Vēļāņmai, Vēļālar, are derived from their art of irrigation and cultivation rather than from their original chieftainship....")
Take a loot at my edits before you allege or I will report you for lying.
And what genetics are you talking about? Feel free to add referenced material as counter claims. But you have no right to delete existing referenced material. What Kshatriya -- all claims happened in colonial times only. It is absurd to say colonial period claims should not exist in the article. Ask Sitush to talk to me about this. Btw, whole of India was loaded with numerous warring groups. Just being a peasant-soilder or chieftain did not make one a kshatriya, unless and until, he followed the rituals status prescribed for kshatriyas in the dharmashastras --- the very term 'kshatriya' is a ritual status, of the indo-aryan culture. Don't blame brahmins for a ritual status which you yourself ran after but cannot get -- simply because you guys do not belong to it. In fact if you really look at origins of Vellalars, they are illegitimate sons of Andhra Vishwamitras who themselves were outcast as Dasas (dasa are slaves of dvijas in the dharmshastras, so how can you be given a kshatriya ritual status in such case -- no point blaming present day brahmins for a history which nobody can change or be held responsible for in today's times). Whatever "scientific articles" you have feel free to provide in the article...Bring it on, i have enuf material on crappy claims. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Then please had this part, you just stopped at 'Vellalar/Velir connection is unconvincing... You should write the whole sentence.Rajkris (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Rajkris

Enough of your lies. In the reference i produced this whole paragraph from the cited source:
[ref]University of Kerala (1987). The Journal of Kerala Studies, Vol 14, p.6-7 [13]: "There are several epigraphs of the Ay Vels which attribute a Yadava origin to them. Nachchinarkkiniyar's references to the Velir and the Agastya legend have been exploited to support the hypothesis that the Velir came from the Indus Valley region after the downfall of the Harappan civilization. Also some modern scholars have tried to equate them with the Vellalar caste. However, such etymological interpretations to connect Vellalar with Velir appear unconvincing. The panegyrists keen on establishing the antiquity of Venad contend that the consort of Cheran Shenguttuvan bore the name of Venmal as as indicative of descent from Velir tribe and the close ties between the Cheras and Vels. Some say that the Kanchipuram stone inscriptions corroborate this fact. As Kulasekhara Alwar in one of his songs in the Perumal Tirumozhi calls himself by the name Vel Kulasekharan some historians have tried to connect the Cheras of Kodungalloor with Vels. However the latest historical studies reveal that the Vels were Ays and the name Venad (Vel + Nadu) came to be so called from the rulers of Venad having been the rulers of Aynad also.".[/ref]

Reply to Rajkris

I had provided the URL [14] of Journal of Kerala Studies and elaborated on the citation [15], after you asked for it. And now you allege i deliberately deleted.. Heights of outright lying. Please have some sense before you allege. This is the part i had provided and you are the one who kept deleting it --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, The Journal of Kerala Studies states "etymological interpretations to connect Vellalar with Velir appear unconvincing". It is suggested the word Vellalar comes from the root Vellam for flood, which gave rise to various rights of land; and it is because of the acquisition of land rights that the Vellalar got their name. The Vellalars were supposedly Shudra agriculturists who arrived from northern Canara and unconnected to the Velir chieftains. The Vellalars, though land-controlling and tillers of soil with brahmanic ideas of purity, did not follow Kshatriya ritual practices as codified in the dharmashastras, and were officially classified as Sat-Sudra in the 1901 census; with the Government of Madras recognising the 4-fold varna division did not describe the South Indian, or Dravidian, society adequately. It was noted that families regarded as pure Vellalar caste (Saiva Vellalars) were reluctant to question the bona fides of those pretending to be Vellalar, since the line between them was noted to be very thin indeed; with the former occasionally drawing partners for marriage from the ranks of the latter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

There is no need to write such details in Kshatriyas, my summary is enough, that's what i am telling, details must be written in Vellalar page. Please give a ref regarding illegimate son of Andhra Vishwamitras... First time I hear about this, I have refs which link Vellalars with Yadu. Division of India between Dravidian & Aryan was born from Colonial concept... My refs ar more recent and therefore have more authority than ancient ones.Rajkris (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure i will do the edits on the Vellalar page with the details of Velams (harems). However, you have been repeatedly deleting referenced material on the Kshatriya page and for that I have reported you for vandalism. Please respond here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rajkris Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I have added my answer. I will check with an admin. Here is a writing about Yadu & Velirs/Vellala connection [16] page 16, etc. It is a recent academic article. I have lost the scientific article (genetic connection), I will try to find again.Rajkris (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Rajkris

Went thru the paper. Where does Mahadevan say anything about Vellalars being descendents of Velirs or that they are Kshatriyas? He says Ventar-Velir-Velalar groups constituted the ruling and land-owning classes in the Tamil country since the beginning of recorded history and betray no trace whatever of an Indo-Aryan linguistic ancestry. He says it is more plausible to assume that the Yadavas were the Aryanised descendants of an original non-Aryan people than to consider the Tamil Velir to have descended from the Indo-Aryan speaking Yadavas. So this paper suggests they are of non-indoaryan linguistic group origin (contrary to your claims). Being a landowning people does not make one a Kshatriya. Btw, this is another source.
All the same, as said before, feel free to add your content to the article. But you have absolutely no reason to delete referenced material from the page (except for your whim). Please respond on the ANI page. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

your source is not an academic one but an article written by some nadars to promote their caste... This is propaganda not recognised by scientific community.Rajkris (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not mentioned that source in any article yet. Just shared with you for your info. Btw, am trained in genetics. So whatever content you are searching for (with claims of so-called genetic connections or recognized by scientific community), you can ask from me. Anyways, no part of this discussion takes away the fact that you have been vandalizing the page Kshatriya because you do not want content contrary to your Kshatriya claims on that page. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sorry Maya, I think you are not understanding me.Rajkris (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

BtW, Yadu are considered Kshatriyas (aryan or aryanised). Fyi, in feudal society (be it in Europe, China, India or anywhere else), the nobility of a person, family or group was characterised by the possession, the right to own goods and above all lands. I have no objection about mentionning Shudra. It is documented in the Vellalar page. I just want to tell that Vellalars, being hindus claim Kshatriyas status based on their aristocratic roots eventhough they were not recognised as such in the brahmanical tradition. It is a complex issue, what i blaim you is you simply separate 'dravidian' & 'aryan' & tell that kshatriya is aryan and cannot correspond to south indian society. This does not correspond to historical reality but are colonial, western pov.Rajkris (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A question: why have you changed to '...claim...' ?Rajkris (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are grossly mistaken. The term "Kshatriya" is indeed exclusive to the brahmin tradition. All sources of the very word 'Kshatriya' come from the dharmashastras, sacrifical texts of brahmanas (including rituals prescribed for the coronation or pattabhishekam ceremonies), and not to forget the late text of Purushasukta in the Rigveda. Just being a warrior or landowning group did not make anyone or everyone a Kshatriya if they did not follow the culture and ritualism prescribed for Kshatriyas as per the dharmashastras. None of the castes of southindia followed rituals prescribed for Kshatriyas. All castes claimed Kshatriya varna position in the colonial period owing to their landowning capacity. All landowning groups right from medieval times claimed descent from Yadu, or some fanciful characters from Vedas and Puranas. However, there is no conclusive proof for such claims. You may wish to read up on Chola administration, their Velams (harems) and elite soldiers produced from those harems from women captured from rival territories. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I agree but what about mentions of Dravidas, Cambodia & others as kshatriyas in Hindu texts... Fyi, even in north India only a few kings and some very top members used to follow such rituals... So claiming for example that all rajputs are proper kshatriyas is also wrong. This is theory, if you use it, no caste is kshatriya in india. It would be nice if you can provide me proper academic articles about Velams.Rajkris (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I just found an academic book about Velam. Can you please reply to: "why have you changed 'being the heir...' to '...claim...' ?". Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a claim. Good many people of diverse peasant castes became vellalars. How can they be 'heirs'? Vellalars are just a social group; made up of people of diverse origins. As explained just being a landowning group (which many were) does not entitle one to a Kshatriya position (unless they belonged to that culture and ritualism). AFAIK the oldest texts mentioning 'Kshatriya' are those i mentioned above. India is home to numerous warring groups and factions. All came up with claims of Kshatriya-hood after capturing land and consolidating social power. In that sense, there were no 'born' kshatriyas. And people remained 'kshatriyas' only as long as they were not defeated and enslaved. There were no Kshatriyas before the social construct of 4-varnas were created. No, Rajputs are not proper kshatriyas either. They are not kshatriyas from the vedic period. They arose in the medieval period, and yes, they too followed the system of producing warriors from harems. Actually, politics of the colonial period decided outcomes on the varna accorded to any social group. As for Velams, i recommend the book "Slavery and South Asian History", by Indrani Chatterjee and Richard Maxwell. Do look up the many sources mentioned in the book (like Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, Nilakanta Shastri, etc). I do quite like the work of Daud Ali who documented several records to came up with his papers on Velams. Best wishes. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I do agree with some of your statements but rejects some others. I will explain why with my arguments & refs in the coming days.Rajkris (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, will wait for your inputs before making changes to the Vellalar article. Am busy until beginning of next month as well. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

If you are able to provide proper refs, you can do any change you wish, I can't do anything. But if there is no agreement, you must engage discussion first (this is wiki rule). Please see below my reply to your above comments.Rajkris (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO YOUR ABOVE COMMENTS

Kshatriya: this term is used origninally to designate the Hindu ruling members (the aristocraty) and only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to the different classes of the hindu society in order to take control of it. So your statement that the term Kshatriya as a Brahmin invention and therefore only those who are ritually considered as Kshatriyas by Brahmins are actually Kshatriyas is not correct. Scholars consider this situation as a struggle between rulers & priest for supremacy. By asserting this, you are supporting the Brahmin position, this is POV & does not correspond to histoical reality. See this ref: [17]. Regarding Vellalar: they are indeed a social group which is a definition of caste (see OED). Even though there were rich peasants & other warrior tribes who claimed Vellalars status & managed to enter this group, mixing were limited: see this doc [18] (This is not the one I mentionned above, I think I lost it); This doc tend to show that eventhough external people claimed Vellalar status & managed to enter this group, mixtures with upper sub castes were (really) limited. Regarding your statement that many castes claimed link with ancient Kshatriya clans, yes this is true but known of them were seriously studied by scholars such as Velir/Vellalar (see these refs: [19], [20]).Rajkris (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Rajkris

I prefer addressing your issues pointwise. So bear with me.

Kshatriya: this term is used origninally to designate the Hindu ruling members (the aristocraty) and only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to the different classes of the hindu society in order to take control of it. So your statement that the term Kshatriya as a Brahmin invention and therefore only those who are ritually considered as Kshatriyas by Brahmins are actually Kshatriyas is not correct. Scholars consider this situation as a struggle between rulers & priest for supremacy. By asserting this, you are supporting the Brahmin position, this is POV & does not correspond to histoical reality. See this ref: [21].

Nowhere did i say the term 'kshatriya' is a "brahmin invention". Hope you understand the difference between 'invention' and 'tradition'. A tradition is where the coronation ceremony includes vedic rites (that is, rituals as prescribed in the brahmanas for pattabhishekham). Please provide references where the term Kshatriya indicates merely aristocracy without ritual status. The book link you provided takes me to a blank page. And no French sources please (otherwise please translate briefly into English).

Regarding Vellalar: they are indeed a social group which is a definition of caste (see OED). Even though there were rich peasants & other warrior tribes who claimed Vellalars status & managed to enter this group, mixing were limited: see this doc [22] (This is not the one I mentionned above, I think I lost it); This doc tend to show that eventhough external people claimed Vellalar status & managed to enter this group, mixtures with upper sub castes were (really) limited.

What did you understand from the paper on the genetic structure on mukkalathors? That mixing was limited and your last sentence of the above paragraph? If so, please let me know how you reached that conclusion? And what do you mean by "mixing"? Where from do you think the peasants (rich or otherwise) and the warring people(s) arose in the first place?

Regarding your statement that many castes claimed link with ancient Kshatriya clans, yes this is true but known of them were seriously studied by scholars such as Velir/Vellalar (see these refs: [23], [24]).

From these two sources, i find no mention that the Velir are the current Vellalar community. BTW, the Mahadevan source co-relates the pitcher born agastya legend to historical claims of the Pallavas and Chalukyas (on their origin), neither of whom have a Tamil origin. Anyways, you had provided the same Mahadevan source earlier (so see my reply above [[25]]) --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Ok, I will address here soon.Rajkris (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Contd

Sorry if you can't read the refs I have given, It is not my mistake... From now on, I will also give you the title & page(s) of my ref so that you can check on your own if my links do not work properly.

Regarding Kshatriya, here are some refs about the definition, the conception of Kshatriya based on historical real truth and not brahmanical pov (that is to sum up: kshatriyas are the ruling class of the Hindu society, whether or not they are recognised as such by Brahmins):

• The Caste System of Northern India by EAH Blunt, page 26: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'" [26]
• Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier, page 82: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya." [27]
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: [28]
  

Regarding, Vellalar/Velir/Yadava: the ref I gave you so far, talked about the connection between the group called Velir/Vel with Yadava, regarding the history of Agastya & Velirs, this history is mentionned in the Tolkapiam, text written around 2000 years ago (see page 16 of the pdf doc). Regarding the connection between Velirs & Vellalar, Here are some recent refs (less than 25 years):

• The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom by Nicholas B. Dirks (1987) page 149 [29]
  
• Encyclopedia of world cultures: South Asia, Volume 2 page 304 (1996): "There is fairly strong literary and archeological evidence linking core Vellala subcastes with a group chieftains called Velir,..." [30]
  
• Boundary walls: caste and women in a Tamil community by Kamala Ganesh (1993), page 49: "However, it is possible to identify in selected areas, core Vellala groups with a fairly continuous and traceable history. A broad consensus links these groups with Velir: powerful chieftains of the Sangam period." [31]
  

Regarding the last doc about genetics, i wanted to show you that eventhough there were mixture with newly vellalar claiming people, those mixture were limited... Even nowadays upper Vellalars do not consider lower rank Vellalar as proper Vellalars. See page 6 of [32]: "The two Brahmins (Iyer and Iyengar) along with the high rank non-Brahmin (Veerakodi Vellalar) formed a separate cluster."Rajkris (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Rajkris (Contd)

1) Refs need to be in English (not french) and that's all i expect. Thanks for providing book title / page.

2) You say "kshatriyas are the ruling class of the Hindu society, whether or not they are recognised as such by Brahmins"
You are stuck on this one point and merely putting it in diff sentences repeatedly. The claims of Charles Drekmeier are neither correct nor acceptable in the views of laws of former 'hindu' kingdoms i.e., dharmashastras. Of course, if a region was Jain or Buddhist, they had no need to follow 'hindu' laws. But if it was 'hindu' and so-called 'vedic', then dharmashastras were the laws and varna terminology had to be used. There are too many land-owning communities all across India, each of their own culture / religion (india being mostly agamic rather than vedic) and everyone did not run to courts in colonial period to get themselves coronated as kshatriyas. The Tamils too followed (and follow) tantric and agamic cultures; so where is the question of an indo-aryan culture or cultural-term 'kshatriya'?

Time and again already explained, the ruling class (from wherever they arose) had to have ceremonial rituals of coronation and associated stuff, done by priestly classes to be called 'kshatriyas'. Commentators like Medhathithi also accept occupation gives the right to varna (it always did btw). Point is not origin but culture associated with the occupation and thus the ritual status.

All you need to do is provide proof that Vellalar families were following Indo-aryan culture / performing rituals demarcating them as kshatriyas in the recent or previous centuries.

Am of opinion colonial period historians did not do a complete job. So will appreciate if you could provide details of Vellalar families which followed indo-aryan kshatriya rituals until the past few centuries. Additionally a community had to prove in colonial period courts that all members of a community followed such rituals. So, do all present day vellalar families have a history of following kshatriya rituals until the recent past? Not just vellalar, all over the country dominant landowning castes such as Marathas and Kayasthas were classed as Shudras. Because its members came from different occupations / ranks including farmers. Do look up the case of Kayasthas of Bengal who adopted the upanayana ritual in colonial period (though its members came from tanti-weaver and other castes). Fact is, not just Vellalars, but all non-brahmin non-dalit 'castes' are infact social groups with members from different occupational origins.

The vellalars as a whole are noted to practice different rituals in different areas and different sects. Some gounders even involve barbers in a wedding ceremony (a practice confined to socially v.low castes in kannada and telugu speakers). Ghurye, census and other records note the socio-cultural and ritual variations. So how can a community (with members from different origins) as a whole lay claim to a single varna? Especially when there is no record of any vellalar following specific indo-aryan rituals differentiating him from the rest of the populace, as a kshatriya during the colonial times?

3) All claims of connecting Vellalar with Velir by misinterpreting Tholkappiyam, was started in the colonial period by vellalar writers such as V.Kanakasabhai and from thereon, different books reproduced the claims quoting such authors. So had provided the details from the Journal of Kerala Studies (which you wrongly alleged me of deleting -- something which i do not take kindly to even now). Had also provided the details in the Vellalar article (from Journal of Kerala Studies, as well as other sources such as M. A. Dorai Rangaswamy). But in the Vellalar article even the sources got misquoted (by you it appears -- since the article says "However, the Vellalars are still considered to be the most likely descendants of the Velir, etymological interpretations notwithstanding" -- a point which none of the sources imply or explicitly say so themselves -- anyways, will edit the Vellalar article later). So, now, to set the record straight, Can you produce a pre-colonial work or a historical proof, such as an inscription or an epigraphical record linking Vellalar to the Velir?

4) FYI, the genetics paper was provided as a source by me. The paper mentions only a sample from the Veerakodi Vellalar sect, not all Vellalar (sub)castes. Provide proof, how even nowadays upper Vellalars do not consider lower rank Vellalar as proper Vellalars. Contrary to your claims, had already provided the source in the Vellalar article from the 'Encyclopaedia of the Theoretical Sociology'.

Basically Rajkris, you have just 2 things to do:
A) Provide info / details, if vellalars (all present-day claimants to the vellalar caste) follow or followed indo-aryan kshatriya rituals until the recent past?
B) Produce a precolonial or historical proof (inscription / epigraph) linking Vellalar to Velir.

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

iyengar-> sri sampradaya and sri vaishnava

Highly biased and mischievous statements that you fixed in Iyengar page has been reintroduced by Hari7478 in other pages Sri Sampradaya and Sri Vaishanava. Just bringing to your attention. I will try to fix this. --FastnFurios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Please see the Iyengar talk page. Have written a note to Sitush. Sadly, Ramanuja's followers decided to split the way they did. Wonder what he wud say to the groupism being given racial connotations today. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra, i never brought older issues into other iyengar related pages(sri sampradaya). The edit was made simultaneously while making the older revision. Thereafter , either i neglected the sri sampradaya page, or i forgot to make newer revisions. Also, i'm hereby providing the diff of edits that this user made so that you can know his intentions.

Diff 1:[33] - user:fastandsurious's edit comment - "sensitive information should be supported by world renowned authors".

Reply: However, as per WP verifiability sensitive info should be supported by neutral parties. Just because the author is indian doesn't mean her works are insignificant.

Diff 2: [34] - Unnecessary addition of "see also" section in the thenkalai page. The info box and the links in the main article serve the purpose of the "see also" section. Also the user had mischievously added "ahobila mutt" under that section trying to relate the mutt to the thenkalai branch without neutral party sources.

Although these issues have been discussed in the talk page, this user is just indulging in "trolling" by reopening the same that were discussed in full length and settled. Need i say more? And i advice you to stick to wp oriented discussions - your reply to fastandfurious doesn't pertain to wp talk page guidelines. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint at the edit warring noticeboard

Hello Mayasutra. In your post, can you please include the name of the article where you think 3RR has been broken? I have to observe that your signature is hard to understand. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Its the Iyengar page. Please view http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyengar&action=history --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hiding edits

Hi. You appear to be accusing User:Hari7478 of hiding his edits. However, it is not possible to do that, as people keep telling you, so you really need to drop that accusation. If you mark an edit as minor, it is not hidden, but shows with an "m" against it in the page history. You mentioned a "Do not Show Minor Edits" box, but there is no such box when you make an edit - next time you make an edit, have a look and you will not see one.

Are you perhaps getting confused with your watchlist? That has a "Show/Hide minor edits" option, but that's for you to use to decide whether you want minor edits to show up there - the person making the edit has no control over that. And there is no such option for a page history view, as far as I can see - all edits, minor or otherwise, show up there.

If you still don't understand what is happening, please feel free to explain exactly how you think Hari7478 is hiding their edits, and I'll see what I can do to clear it up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Result of your edit-warring complaint about Iyengar, and caste warning notice

Please see the result of this complaint at WP:AN3#User:Hari7478 reported by User:Mayasutra (Result: Protection, caste warnings). I'm also leaving you a notice of the General sanctions about caste, which are most fully explained at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. I encourage both parties to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution while the page is protected. Resumption of edit warring after protection expires could lead to blocks and possible bans from caste articles under the General sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you just deleted a large chunk from Vadalakai? You say to see the ANI discussion, but 1) ANI never rules on content, and 2) they didn't discuss the content in this case at all. Under what grounds do you believe that you now have consensus for that removal? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)